Summary: November of 2006 was a great month for Xbox 360 gamers. Two of the system's finest titles to date hit the streets right before the holidays and players were beside themselves with how to budget their time in between the two. Should I spend time leveling up character in the multiplayer of Rainbow Six Vegas or should I bring the fight to the Locusts as Marcus Fenix in Gears of War? That was the question. For most the longstanding answer was the neon colored world of Vegas rather than the destroyed beauty of the other Unreal Engine 3 powered gem.

Eighteen months have gone by since the original Vegas and the world of geeks and nerds has been waiting with baited breath wondering whether or not Ubisoft Montreal would give them the sequel that they so desperately wanted. A fitting conclusion to the storyline, revamped gameplay, and the most fleshed out multiplayer mode the world had ever seen; that is what Vegas 2 needs to be to be a true success in the eyes of the many faithful fans. Read Full Article

A good fair review I thought. I'm suprised by the 8.4 though, from what the review said though it deserves a lower mark (than the first). There is no excuse to have framerate issues for the second game that are worse than the first vegas..it's just inexcusable Ubisoft! Personally I wasn't looking for vegas 2 to change drastically because I liked the first one so much. But it sounds like Ubisoft royally screwed the co-op and team AI still sucks ballsack. If this is the xbox360 rating I'm scared to see the PS3 rating

Sounds like a fair review for the most part except for the complaining mostly about things we already know,but please for the love of god stop comparing it to COD4 its really starting to get old listening to people do this.The only thing I dont understand is why everyone is so quick to point out the less then realistic aspects of RSV but not COD4 which has plenty of unrealistic things in it and this is coming from a COD4 junky.It also doesnt suprise me that once again us PS3 owners will be getting a less then equal game compared to the 360.

Review sounds like a big long whine. Had the developers changed the game too much, then it would have been a long whine about how they strayed from a formula that worked. And yes, I agree with the other post... enough with the COD4 comparisons. I play COD4. I enjoy it and I love the fact that the RSV series is NOT like COD4. I also still play GRAW2. It all depends on the mood my buds and I are in.

omg what is a matter with most off you, the review is terrible. they (ubisoft) know how much we loved the 1st one and they knew if they strayed too far from that one then we would all be moaning, but then most of you now are moaning because they kept what made us fall in love with the 1st one and beefed it up a bit. just stop your whining because you know your buying it and are going to love it, enough said. have fun all of ya, i know i will.

these reveiws proof my point about straying to far, i wont show who there from tho in case ign tell me off..................................................................... Ubisoft has taken a huge gamble by not making wholesale changes to Rainbow Six Vegas 2, but it's come up smelling liike roses. It's still one of the very best-value, high-quality FPS packages available on the 360. and this is my favorite................................................................................A hell of a package. It's sort of a shame that so much of it is recycled from the last game, but nobody stops eating their favorite food because it's similar every time - and this is the Kobe beef of tactical FPS. love the bit about food its so true, cya..

I don't understand some of you people. I don't understand people like you. Shouldn't you WANT the game to be similar to the first? It is a direct sequel, after all. The first game ended in a cliff hanger, this game shows what lead up to the first game, and what happened afterwards. Therefore, it concludes the story, and deserves the '2' at the end of the title. Secondly, it improved upon certain aspects of the first game (ranking, graphics, being able to run, etc...), third, we have a ton of new maps. Fourth, we have a bunch of new guns, camo, outfits, etc... I'm sure there are tons of other stuff that I've left out.

What the hell else do you want!? The first game 'worked', so they obviously don't want to change it around too much in the sequel, which will conclude the story. What did you want them to do, redesign the whole gameplay aspect so that it's totally unrecognizable as a 'Rainbow Six' game? Seriously, explain what you would have liked to be different.

I'm sure there will be tons of different things in the next 'Rainbow Six' game, but please keep in mind, this was a direct sequel to the last game, set in the same city, and it concludes the story. There is no way that they could have changed EVERYTHING around and still been a proper sequel.

I really don't understand how this review is making claims like "it's the same game as before" blah blah blah. So the story is new, the levels are new, but it's the same game? Why, because you have access to the same guns, are able to control your squad, and can use cover? Please, explain yourself.

Wow, I think games like GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas, God of War 2, and any other great sequel should have their scores reduced to the 8.5 range just because of the garbage of a review. I mean, at this point I'm expecting Gears 2 to get a 8.6. WHAT'S WRONG WITH PLAYING MORE OF THE SAME GREATNESS!!! I will picking up my copy later and NOT reading IGN.com.

AND!!! How is it suprisingly similar??? I don't work for a big internet magizine or anything, and I don't consider myself a good game critic, but even I knew the game mechanics would be identical tou the last game's. Wake up IGN! (Other sequels that should automatically have their scores reduced: Halo 2 & 3, KOTOR The Sith Lords, Half-Life 2: Episodes 1 & 2, GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas... and more) Why did no one complain about these game's similarity to their previous iterations???

Honestly I do think it is worth it for a reviewer to make comments that indicate if a sequal is the same as the game it is based on. That way a player knows if this game is worth getting. Some people might not have been fans of the first Vegas, but might've been long time fans of the Rainbow Six series and would want to know if any attempts have been made to change the game back to it's roots (not that I would want that, but I can see some people could).

As a fair and honest review, all things should be mentioned. And when all else fails, remember, this review is just one man's opinion.

Yea ironically, according to the Vegas 2 ad all over this website it says that gameinformer gave it a "9.5/10". So i'm sure other websites knew what to expect from this sequel.

Although the co-op from 4players to 2 does suck, I hope there's a way they could do a add-on(DLC) to allow 4 players for the co-op story later on and also improve whatever framerate issues this game supposely has.

If the "glitching" from multiplayer is gone then i guess i wont be complaining much, still getting this game tomorrow.

I was expecting an 8.8 or something but im not gunna let a shitty review put me off getting a great game like this, especially when all reviews seem to be based ont the previous game nowadays and COD4 when it is a shooter. How bout you finally put down that nooby game and get over it.

An 8.4 is not a bad score. According to IGN's own rating system, the game is considered "Impressive". It is interesting to note, however, that the main criticism has to do with its similarity to the original Vegas. I'm with some of the reader comments on this one: Halo 3 was a minor tweak from Halo 2, but it was rarely criticised as such. Different reviewers, mind you, but still...

Don't bitch about the review. It's one of many critics. Look at multiple sources not one. I thought it was a good review and i'm going to get it because It's something else to do online that's updated from the original

I'm glad they kept the gameplay more or less the same, and I'm not surprised they did - Its what got me hooked in the first place, and I still went back to it after COD4. The multiplayer is classic. I must say I'm a bit dissapointed that the framerate is still an issue, but its not too bad. Its awesome to hear that some of the Raven Shield maps are in here, some of those maps are bloody awesome.

Yeah I agree Peachy77 - It seems that the main criticism as you say, is the similarity to the first game - To me its a must have as this isn't a criticism but a plus, the gameplay needn't change I feel.

I saw this coming all the way
I am still going to buy this game because I need a new shooter but it was obvious from the vids and screenshots that this game wasn't going to be drastically different.
Hopefully destructable cover does add a new dimension though

I'm really looking forward to picking this one up, but I will say that my heart sank a little when I read about the teammate AI and the Co-op issue. But my heart didn't sink because of IGN's review---it sank because Ubisoft explicitly tauted how much better the AI would be and how great co-op was! The proof's in the pudding, so I'll just have to wait to play it to see how much I agree, but it's still a bummer to read.

But guys, come on---it's an 8.4! You act like the game received a 5.4. Saying a game is still awesome but not as awesome as it was two years ago isn't all that horrible. Just honest.

If enough people notice the still-poor AI and the co-op weaknesses, maybe Ubisoft will hear us and patch it. (although, the former would likely be a lot harder to fix in an update than the latter).

"world of geeks and nerds has been waiting with baited breath wondering whether or not Ubisoft Montreal would give them the sequel that they so desperately wanted. A fitting conclusion to the storyline, revamped gameplay"

Revamped? Hells no, just more of the same for me please. Except a fix for the terrorist hunt spawning behind you problems.

Co-op down to 2 sucks... But what about T.H.? That is the mode I spent the majority of time on. Why such a huge omission in your review?

That's a great point. T.H. is the most addictive mode for me, too, but the spawning issue sucked big-time in RSV. Shame it's not mentioned in the review. Have to wait till tomorrow to see if it's any better, I guess.

An 8.4 is not a bad score. According to IGN's own rating system, the game is considered "Impressive". It is interesting to note, however, that the main criticism has to do with its similarity to the original Vegas. I'm with some of the reader comments on this one: Halo 3 was a minor tweak from Halo 2, but it was rarely criticised as such. Different reviewers, mind you, but still...

Click to expand...

You make a really good point here. Halo has hardly changed since the first game and yet it still pulls out 9's for both sequels.

To me, comparing the similarities of the two games really comes down to one question: is this worthy of being called true "sequel," with a fully priced retail disc; or could this all have been delivered as DLC to RSV1 for $20 or $30?

To me, it seems there are enough additions to warrant the retail disc. That said, this does appear more like a "Black Arrow" type of release than a full-blown sequel, so maybe $39.99 would have been a more appropriate price.

Mind you, I'm still getting the damn thing, despite that, because I am a sucker that has been looking forward to this. Just a thought.

You guys claim that Halo 3 was only Halo 2 with minor tweaks, but it still got a 9.5. Halo 3 offers a lot more than Halo 2 did, but I still think that Halo 2 was a better game overall. My question is, why aren't critics rating Super Smash Bros. Brawl lower because it is a near replica of Melee without the SSE. The games looks exactly the same, plays exactly the same, and the majority of fighters are exactly the same. That game received a 9.5, and I don't hear anybody complaining except myself. If you want to talk about recycled games, talk about SSBB because it has been very disappointing for me unlike Halo has.

Because there is only one review for each game. The text review is also exactly the same, only the scores are different: The PS3 version got 8.2, the Xbox version scored 8.4. IGN, you need to make this clearer, by the way, because the board thread is linked to both. A way to show the score on other systems (if they are not the same) would make this way easier to notice, and prevent confusion.

As for the tagline, "Ubisoft storms Sin City with a new outing that feels surprisingly similar to the last.", I really wonder what Nate expected: That Ubisoft would change their winning system? Other than that, the review seems fair but places too much emphasis on the lack of innovation within the well-tried formula.

It's a review that brings up the age-old question of execution vs innovation. What's better, to execute an old system well (Halo 3) or to innovate with certain flaws (Mass Effect)? However, 8.4 is a perfectly good score, and if Vegas 2 is in fact the uninspired sequel Nate makes it out to be, that score is deserved.

Wow, i always hated IGN's reviews, take Halo 9.5 and it was a horriblw game and everbody thought so. 2nd Vegas 2 is a great game i played a week before it came out and it had no lag or framerate problems that you say. You also never mentioned any new stuff like bullet penetration. So if you ask me yall are just winers.

"""I'd buy it even if it was titled R6vegas 1.5, It'll be great online"""

Well folks, posts like this are the reason Ubisoft knows it can get away with once again destroying another one of it's franchises then rehashing it to no end.

Ubisoft has destroyed every single franchise they ever had. Ghost Recon has become a Hollywood-esque, Socomish, arcadey, clunky joke, Splinter Cell has also turned into a Hollywood-esque, lame button masher and now R6 has become nothing more than a rehash of a game that was a lazy release to begin with. This series has gone downhill since R63 and it looks like there's no end to this downgrading each time.

How can a rehash of the original be worse in in almost every way from A.I., to graphics, to framerates, to gimped co-op and still keep the fanboys attention? I guess only Ubisoft has found some sort of magical answer to that.

Innovation is incredibly important. It's what makes purchasing a sequel worthwhile. Why spend over $60 on a game you already own and enjoy? Simple tweaks and polish aren’t enough. If only minor improvements are made, then you have more or less an expansion. If Vegas 2 is a total rehash of one with some minor spit shine, then it deserves an even lower score. Maybe Ubisoft should put some times into their franchises instead of pumping out sequels on a yearly basis.